This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

No, it's not "pushing 200K", unless you came from one of those families
where math was considered an elitist subject.


Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K?

Because you want to post messages on usenet, saying you "proved" that timing
belts can last more than 90K.


Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Because you enjoy having your vehicle stop running when you least expect it,
perhaps far from home where you have a mechanic you've trusted for years.

You also imagine that you can predict when the water pump will go bad.

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt & water
pump replaced.

On Jun 15, 10:48*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

Need to know what kind of car to answer that question. If it is a non-
interference engine like my dad's old Pinto, the only consequence of
it breaking is that you will have to walk home. If this is an
interference engine like a newer VW 1.8T, the consequences of the belt
breaking are much more severe, as in "which is cheaper, a new engine
or a new car."

nate

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If it has tits or wheels, sooner or later, you will have problems.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

If you get into all the parts that are worn, and might go out, you could
spend thousands on upgrading to new condition items that might last another
tens of thousands of miles.

Steve

Visit my site at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

All errors, brain farts, misspelled words intentional because this computer
is set to Spelchek French, and I can't get it to do any different.

On Jun 15, 10:48*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

Depends on the valve design. On some vehicles it is possible to have
valve / piston interference if the valves are left open while the
piston completes it's cycle. On other engines it is not possible for
the valve and piston to colide no matter what their positions.

As you can imagine if your engine falls in the first category you can
have a whole lot of extra damage if the timing belt breaks. On a 100k
+ mileage engine it could be toast as the rest of the engine condition
might not justify that sort of repair.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

First, determine if it is an interference engine. Go the the Gates Belt
web site and you can look it up. They also give the recommended change
intervals.

If it is interference, change it now or you can trash the engine. If it
is no, you may be tempted to go a bit longer. Age is a factor also as
rubber does deteriorate with age.

The manual does build in a safety factor. The key is knowing just how
much. The cost of replacing now is $X.XX. The cost of waiting and having
a faileure is $XXX + cost of a tow+cost of a motel if out of town+cost of
other potential inconvenience.

If you are contemplating selling the car, a recently changed belt adds a
bit to the resale value and buyer confidence for the new guy.

FWIW,. many manufacturere state 60,000 change times.

FWIW, TY, I stand corrected. I made a statement that it would be no big
deal if it stripped a timing belt, not being aware of the valve interface
issue. When I worked on cars as a youth, you could set the points with a
matchbook cover, and I could have the heads off a 283 Chevy V8 in less than
an hour. Things have changed.

Steve

Visit my site at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

All errors, brain farts, misspelled words intentional because this computer
is set to Spelchek French, and I can't get it to do any different.

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?

DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?
Hi,
It is a matter of peace of mind particularly if the engine valve is
interfering type. I am still driving '98 Honda CRV. No oil burning/leak,
no rattles, perfect 3ven compression on all cylinders, Would I replace a
car like this? No. I am on the way for 3rd belt.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

First, determine if it is an interference engine. Go the the Gates Belt web
site and you can look it up. They also give the recommended change
intervals.

If it is interference, change it now or you can trash the engine. If it is
no, you may be tempted to go a bit longer. Age is a factor also as rubber
does deteriorate with age.

The manual does build in a safety factor. The key is knowing just how much.
The cost of replacing now is $X.XX. The cost of waiting and having a
faileure is $XXX + cost of a tow+cost of a motel if out of town+cost of
other potential inconvenience.

If you are contemplating selling the car, a recently changed belt adds a bit
to the resale value and buyer confidence for the new guy.

FWIW,. many manufacturere state 60,000 change times.

On Jun 15, 10:48*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

I replaced mine well before its time because I needed a new water pump
and since belt was off the only extra cost was price of a new belt.
I'm no mechanic but believe on some vehicles, a broken belt can be
disastrous but on others it is not. If yours is one that could have a
problem if the belt breaks, I'd probably do it now.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:48:43 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?
You don't say what kind of car / which engine. Many are SHOT if you
wait for the belt to fail. It's your nickel, but I'd rather replace it
sooner than replace the engine.

On Jun 15, 11:24*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,





*DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I am of the "do it at 90K" opinion, no one has addressed the
fact that more than one independent repair shop - one of which I
recommended because they've treated me right in the past - said to
wait.

Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 11:24 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,





DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I am of the "do it at 90K" opinion, no one has addressed the
fact that more than one independent repair shop - one of which I
recommended because they've treated me right in the past - said to
wait.

Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

=================

Because they'll say anything to get rid of a customer who wastes their time
with pointless attempts to predict the future. People like that cost them
money.

On 6/15/2010 11:00 AM, SteveB wrote:
wrote in message
...
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If it has tits or wheels, sooner or later, you will have problems.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

Seems like you have never heard of the very commonly used interference
engine design (it means the valves can contact the pistons). The typical
failure mode for a timing belt is that it slips. Once the engine goes
out of basic time it is almost guaranteed the pistons will hit the valves.


If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

If you get into all the parts that are worn, and might go out, you could
spend thousands on upgrading to new condition items that might last another
tens of thousands of miles.

Steve

Visit my site at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

All errors, brain farts, misspelled words intentional because this computer
is set to Spelchek French, and I can't get it to do any different.

On 6/15/2010 10:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

How lucky is your friend? Thats what it really comes down to since the
so called interference design is very commonly used. That means the
pistons can contact the valves if the engine goes out of basic time. At
that point unless it is a valuable car you sign the line on the title
that says "dispose as salvage" and leave it on the dash.

On Jun 15, 12:16*pm, George wrote:
On 6/15/2010 10:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:





This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

How lucky is your friend? Thats what it really comes down to since the
so called interference design is very commonly used. That means the
pistons can contact the valves if the engine goes out of basic time. At
that point unless it is a valuable car you sign the line on the title
that says "dispose as salvage" and leave it on the dash.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There has been a tendency towards a non-interference design in later
years. Older engines often had an interference design to maximize
compression. With a chain driven cam it didn't matter much. Overhead
cams lead to belts replacing chains since it was chore to enclose a
chain between the top of the head and the crankshaft. But a lot of
the early ones did still have interference valves. High compression
mostly went away with low octane gas so it is a lot simpler to have a
non-interference design now.

On Jun 15, 12:04*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 11:24 am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,

DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I am of the "do it at 90K" opinion, no one has addressed the
fact that more than one independent repair shop - one of which I
recommended because they've treated me right in the past - said to
wait.

Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

=================

Because they'll say anything to get rid of a customer who wastes their time
with pointless attempts to predict the future. People like that cost them
money.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good question why they would say that. If a mechanic told me
not to replace a timing belt that the manufacturer says to replace at
90K because the mechanic has not seen one fail before 110K, I'd get a
new mechanic. The guy is an obvious idiot. To me, knowing that
you've seen them fail at 110K, 90K sounds like the appropriate place
to change it.

Or how lucky do you feel today? As others have pointed out, it also
makes a big difference if the engine design is interference free or
not. If it is, then failure just means a tow, which by itself could
be bad enough, depending on when it happens and the resulting
consequences and costs. Also, since in this case apparently the car
will be kept for significantly longer, but not long enough to require
a second belt, the only apparent advantage in delaying is if something
else were to happen to the car, eg totalled in a wreck or other repair
that could be done at same time, that would impact on this decision.

wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 12:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

=================

Because they'll say anything to get rid of a customer who wastes their
time
with pointless attempts to predict the future. People like that cost them
money.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good question why they would say that. If a mechanic told me
not to replace a timing belt that the manufacturer says to replace at
90K because the mechanic has not seen one fail before 110K, I'd get a
new mechanic. The guy is an obvious idiot. To me, knowing that
you've seen them fail at 110K, 90K sounds like the appropriate place
to change it.

Or how lucky do you feel today? As others have pointed out, it also
makes a big difference if the engine design is interference free or
not. If it is, then failure just means a tow, which by itself could
be bad enough, depending on when it happens and the resulting
consequences and costs. Also, since in this case apparently the car
will be kept for significantly longer, but not long enough to require
a second belt, the only apparent advantage in delaying is if something
else were to happen to the car, eg totalled in a wreck or other repair
that could be done at same time, that would impact on this decision.
================

"failure just means a tow"? Maybe.

Imagine suddenly NOT having engine power to maneuver around some sort of
hazard. That could be fun.

On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine).
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

Perce

On Jun 15, 12:02*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

Um... Possibly because they would rather have the bigger job of
rebuilding your engine when it fails?...

IMO, even if they are correct that they've never seen one fail before
110K, that would make 90K about the right time to change it...IF it's
an interference engine.

If it's not, then there's relatively little danger in waiting and a
significant chance that if you spend the money now, the car will
suffer some other catastrophic failure (that won't be wirth fixing)
before the belt would have failed, making it a waste.

You still haven't said what kind of car. Aside from the interference
issue, what car makes a big difference in how big of a project it is
to change the belt. They might be thinking that will have some other
reason to tear the engine apart soon and you might as well do the belt
then...

Just a few (contradictory) thoughts...

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine).
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

"Larry Fishel" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 12:02 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

Um... Possibly because they would rather have the bigger job of
rebuilding your engine when it fails?...

IMO, even if they are correct that they've never seen one fail before
110K, that would make 90K about the right time to change it...IF it's
an interference engine.

If it's not, then there's relatively little danger in waiting and a
significant chance that if you spend the money now, the car will
suffer some other catastrophic failure (that won't be wirth fixing)
before the belt would have failed, making it a waste.

You still haven't said what kind of car. Aside from the interference
issue, what car makes a big difference in how big of a project it is
to change the belt. They might be thinking that will have some other
reason to tear the engine apart soon and you might as well do the belt
then...

Just a few (contradictory) thoughts...

==================

You must live where it never snows for real. Either that or you have a
strange definition of "fun", like breaking down when plows are passing by
every 20 minutes to bury the road shoulders in snow.

On Jun 15, 12:04*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 11:24 am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,

DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I am of the "do it at 90K" opinion, no one has addressed the
fact that more than one independent repair shop - one of which I
recommended because they've treated me right in the past - said to
wait.

Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

=================

Because they'll say anything to get rid of a customer who wastes their time
with pointless attempts to predict the future. People like that cost them
money.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Imagine if you had the slightest clue how the conversation went.

It was my friend who told the mechanic that the timing belt was on the
dealer's 90K replacement list and he asked for quote to replace it.

It was the mechanic who replied that 90K was too early. The tranny
fluid change made sense, replacing the spark plugs was probably a good
idea, valve adjustments if there was any chatter, but changing the
timing belt was not needed.

It other words it was the mechanic(s) who made the "pointless attempt
to predict the future".

On Jun 15, 2:44*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
You must live where it never snows for real. Either that or you have a
strange definition of "fun", like breaking down when plows are passing by
every 20 minutes to bury the road shoulders in snow.

Actually, I believe it's snowed here twice in recorded history, but
you make a good point...

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 12:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 11:24 am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,

DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I am of the "do it at 90K" opinion, no one has addressed the
fact that more than one independent repair shop - one of which I
recommended because they've treated me right in the past - said to
wait.

Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

=================

Because they'll say anything to get rid of a customer who wastes their
time
with pointless attempts to predict the future. People like that cost them
money.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Imagine if you had the slightest clue how the conversation went.

It was my friend who told the mechanic that the timing belt was on the
dealer's 90K replacement list and he asked for quote to replace it.

It was the mechanic who replied that 90K was too early. The tranny
fluid change made sense, replacing the spark plugs was probably a good
idea, valve adjustments if there was any chatter, but changing the
timing belt was not needed.

It other words it was the mechanic(s) who made the "pointless attempt
to predict the future".
============

I know. You should read slower.

"Larry Fishel" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 2:44 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
You must live where it never snows for real. Either that or you have a
strange definition of "fun", like breaking down when plows are passing by
every 20 minutes to bury the road shoulders in snow.

Actually, I believe it's snowed here twice in recorded history, but
you make a good point...

============

To make my point more interesting: Not keeping your car running well could
make you dead for 6 months of the year around here. :-)

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

Combined total? What, are you selling some weight loss program now?
(these 600 people lost a total of a thousand pounds !!!!!!!!!)

Let's see: 1,000,000 miles divided by six cars is 167,000 miles. I'd say
if you're not getting 300k out of a car, you must be buying ****ty cars.
With timing chains that you can frame and hang on the wall after the
rest of the car disintegrates around them.

On Jun 15, 2:34*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:





On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. *If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine).
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decided to replace timing chains with timing belts? I grew up with
cars that had timing chains and they lasted forever.

Paul

I think it depends on the type of engine you have. If it is an interference
type engine, when and if the timing belt goes, the whole engine can suffer
major damage. If it's not an interference type engine, the timing belt
could go bad and no additional damage to the engine will occur.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

In article
, ****ty
Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of

the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

Combined total? What, are you selling some weight loss program now?
(these 600 people lost a total of a thousand pounds !!!!!!!!!)

Let's see: 1,000,000 miles divided by six cars is 167,000 miles. I'd say
if you're not getting 300k out of a car, you must be buying ****ty cars.

Of course, being better informed than you, *I* would say the reason I'm not
getting 300K out of a car is generally because I try to drive decent cars,
which means not keeping them that long. And specifically because we had one
stolen at 198K, and another totalled at about 162.

You also obviously failed to understand the significance of the fact that
three of those vehicles, we currently own. Hint: that means they're continuing
to accumulate mileage.

If you *are* getting 300K out of a car, then regardless of what you're
*buying*, you're *keeping* ****ty cars.

I prefer to get rid of them before they get that way. But hey, if you like to
drive ****ty cars just so you can brag about getting 300K out of them, be my
guest. You must really enjoy that 1973 Plymouth, huh?

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:15:51 -0700, Pavel314 wrote:
Who decided to replace timing chains with timing belts? I grew up with
cars that had timing chains and they lasted forever.

Hmm, I've had a few Triumphs with chains - the chains were prone to wear,
the drive sprockets were prone to wear, the tensioners were prone to wear
etc. - I don't think they were particularly any more robust than belts;
the only advantage was that you'd often hear them when they started
wearing, so they were unlikely to get to the point where they snapped or
jumped a tooth (replacement interval was 30k miles)

I don't think I've got a belt or chain in the truck - it's just gears
(pushrod engine, so the cam's pretty close to the crank). I suppose they
wear, too...

cheers

Jules

On Jun 15, 10:59*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt & water
pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt & water
pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car stop
running? The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one exceptional
condition under which it might happen, because that situation is avoidable
by operating a switch.

On Jun 15, 4:16*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt & water
pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car stop
running? *The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one exceptional
condition under which it might happen, because that situation is avoidable
by operating a switch.

You obviously missed the point. No comment on the alternator? What
about the power steering pump...should he get that replaced also?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt &
water pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car
stop running? The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one
exceptional condition under which it might happen, because that
situation is avoidable by operating a switch.

when the a/c clutch on my vette seized, it was either run it and have it
catch fire because the serpentine belt was being dragged over a stopped
pulley, or get it towed. that would pretty much define 'stop running'.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 4:16 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt &
water
pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car stop
running? The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one exceptional
condition under which it might happen, because that situation is avoidable
by operating a switch.

You obviously missed the point. No comment on the alternator? What
about the power steering pump...should he get that replaced also?
==================

I just checked my manual and found no manufacturer-recommended replacement
intervals for the items you mentioned. Therefore, they are not in the same
category as an item which DOES come with such recommendations.

"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt &
water pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car
stop running? The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one
exceptional condition under which it might happen, because that
situation is avoidable by operating a switch.

when the a/c clutch on my vette seized, it was either run it and have it
catch fire because the serpentine belt was being dragged over a stopped
pulley, or get it towed. that would pretty much define 'stop running'.




In my former car, a Taurus, it meant "turn off the AC" and things were fine.
So, it all depends.

On Jun 15, 4:29*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 4:16 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



"Ron" wrote in message

....
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt &
water
pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car stop
running? The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one exceptional
condition under which it might happen, because that situation is avoidable
by operating a switch.

You obviously missed the point. No comment on the alternator? What
about the power steering pump...should he get that replaced also?
==================

I just checked my manual and found no manufacturer-recommended replacement
intervals for the items you mentioned. Therefore, they are not in the same
category as an item which DOES come with such recommendations.

I can't even remember that last time I had a water pump
fail....probably sometime in the early 80's on a Celia that had about
150K on it.

Spending money just to be spending is stupid, And most of the shops
use aftermarket parts which end up failing before the factory part
would have anyway.

Oh, and I just checked the owners manuals for my Honda, Toyota, and
Mazda...and there is ZIPPO about replacing the water pump. I suggest
you buy a better car.

On Jun 15, 4:30*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"chaniarts" wrote in message

...



JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
....
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt &
water pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car
stop running? *The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one
exceptional condition under which it might happen, because that
situation is avoidable by operating a switch.

when the a/c clutch on my vette seized, it was either run it and have it
catch fire because the serpentine belt was being dragged over a stopped
pulley, or get it towed. that would pretty much define 'stop running'.

In my former car, a Taurus, it meant "turn off the AC" and things were fine.
So, it all depends.

Oh....now it all depends.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 4:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 4:16 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



"Ron" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 10:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Tell your friend to stop being a moron for a day and get the belt &
water
pump replaced.

Yeah, and why he's at it, he should also get the AC compressor and the
alternator replaced. (rolling eyes).

============

On what planet would the AC compressor make your **necessarily** car
stop
running? The word "necessarily" eliminates mentioning the one
exceptional
condition under which it might happen, because that situation is
avoidable
by operating a switch.

You obviously missed the point. No comment on the alternator? What
about the power steering pump...should he get that replaced also?
==================

I just checked my manual and found no manufacturer-recommended replacement
intervals for the items you mentioned. Therefore, they are not in the same
category as an item which DOES come with such recommendations.

I can't even remember that last time I had a water pump
fail....probably sometime in the early 80's on a Celia that had about
150K on it.

Spending money just to be spending is stupid, And most of the shops
use aftermarket parts which end up failing before the factory part
would have anyway.

Oh, and I just checked the owners manuals for my Honda, Toyota, and
Mazda...and there is ZIPPO about replacing the water pump. I suggest
you buy a better car.

==========


I own a Toyota Tacoma. What would you suggest I buy instead?